Editing Structural functionalism (section)

===Davis and Moore===
[[Kingsley Davis]] and [[Wilbert E. Moore]] (1945) gave an argument for [[social stratification]] based on the idea of "functional necessity" (also known as [[the Davis-Moore hypothesis]]). They argue that the most difficult jobs in any society have the highest incomes in order to motivate individuals to fill the roles needed by the [[division of labour]]. Thus, inequality serves social stability.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Davis|first1=Kingsley|last2=Moore|first2=Wilbert E.|date=1945|title=Some Principles of Stratification|journal=American Sociological Review|volume=10|issue=2|pages=242–249|doi=10.2307/2085643|jstor=2085643}}</ref>

This argument has been criticized as fallacious from a number of different angles:<ref>{{Cite book|title=Health and social theory|last=De Maio|first=Fernando|date=1976–2010|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=9780230517424|location=Houndmills, Basingstoke|oclc=468854721}}</ref> the argument is both that the individuals who are the most deserving are the highest rewarded, and that ''a system of unequal rewards'' is necessary, otherwise no individuals would perform as needed for the society to function. The problem is that these rewards are supposed to be based upon objective merit, rather than subjective "motivations." The argument also does not clearly establish why some positions are worth more than others, even when they benefit more people in society, e.g., teachers compared to athletes and movie stars. Critics have suggested that [[structural inequality]] (inherited wealth, family power, etc.) is itself a cause of individual success or failure, not a consequence of it.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tumin|first=Melvin M.|date=1953|title=Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis|journal=American Sociological Review|volume=18|issue=4|pages=387–394|doi=10.2307/2087551|jstor=2087551|s2cid=40879321}}</ref>